Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Norman St. George, J.), rendered August 10, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentenced him to one year of incarceration on each count, said sentences to run concurrently.

Judgment of conviction modified on the law by vacating the sentences imposed and remanding the matter to the court below for resentencing following a hearing on the issue of whether there was a legitimate basis for defendant's post-plea arrests.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) based upon his violation of a temporary order of protection directing him to refrain from harassing the complainant, Ms. Rush. The promised sentence was conditioned, inter alia, upon defendant's not being arrested between the time of the plea and the sentencing date. Defendant was advised that he would be subject to an enhanced sentence of one year in jail on each count if he violated any of the conditions of the plea. Prior to the sentencing date, defendant was arrested on two separate occasions, on the complaint of Ms. Rush. At sentencing, defense counsel informed the court that defendant was contesting the validity of the arrests, since Ms. Rush had signed an affidavit indicating that defendant may have been falsely accused. Counsel requested an adjournment of sentence in order to determine if defendant would be indicted or if the charges would be dismissed. The court proceeded to impose the enhanced sentence of one year of incarceration on each count, to [*2]run concurrently, upon defendant without conducting further inquiry.

"When an issue is raised concerning the validity of the postplea charge or there is a denial of any involvement of the underlying crime, the court must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation. . . . The nature and extent of the inquiry whether through a summary hearing pursuant to CPL 400.10 or some other fair means is within the court's discretion. . . . The inquiry must be of sufficient depth, however, so that the court can be satisfied not of defendant's guilt of the new criminal charge but of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest on that charge" (People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). In the instant case, after defendant challenged the legitimacy of the arrests, the court imposed an enhanced sentence upon him without conducting a more searching inquiry in order to determine whether there was any basis for defendant's contention that the arrests were based upon false accusations. Under the circumstances, the sentences should be vacated and the matter remanded to the court below for resentencing following a hearing on the issue of whether there was a legitimate basis for the arrests.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.